studio_click

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the deliberate slow glide, post-click waiting for page settle, re-application of theme overlays, and return values/error messages. No hidden destructive behavior is omitted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place. Core action is first, followed by usage guidance, preconditions, selector strategy, and post-click behavior. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: return values, error conditions, post-click behavior, and parameter details. It also suggests adjacent tools for preconditions, completing the contextual picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3, but description adds significant value: explains target can be CSS selector or visible text with examples, and for settle_ms gives default, allowed values, and purpose ('more deliberate beat'). This exceeds baseline expectations.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Glide the visible cursor to a target and click it' for walkthroughs. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the deliberate slow motion and on-camera context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for every button/link/menu interaction in the walkthrough.' Provides preconditions (target must be on screen, use studio_goto/studio_scroll first) and fallback strategy (CSS selector preferred, visible text as fallback). Also instructs on error handling: take screenshot and pick better target.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.